A year and some “change “ ago someone made a comment against Tobit. Some standard comment about fish guts. A guy (previously unknown to me) named David Szaraz unloaded facts and the conversation was essentially over. David appealed to scholarship, actual scholarship,and not what he “wished” the scholarship stated. This is one of the traits that make Apocrypha Apocalypse great. Good to see he’s a big part of this channel.
Isn’t it also based on invented hypothetical stories ? The « Melito making a list to evangelize the Sefarad diaspora » and « Cyril making a list of singled out books because they are going to run up against the Jews because they’re in Jerusalem. » And « The Jews were reading Baruch in their synagogue in the fourth century. ». They’re all hypothetical and not based on evidence at all.
@@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν thank you. By the way I always loved your comments this channel and your insights. I appreciate your knowledge as well. God bless you my friend!
Ubi would be toast if he dared face albrecht on this. he will likely try to do a response and take 8 months to produce it and these blokes will tear it to shreds in minutes. cant contend with this scholarship. my hats off to u gentlemen and truly david u are amazing
Here in Québec, probably (so far as I can tell) the most widely used edition of the Clementine Latin Vulgate Bible for many years was the edition of Fillion published by Letouzey. That edition has the Vulgate appendix including three non-canonical Vulgate books in Fillion's edition, namely 3 & 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. So, even relatively modern editions of the Vulgate, and of the great Clementine Vulgate, at that, occasionally print these writings in the appendix of the Vulgate.
Timestamp 12:50, this is the scholar (who is also the general editor of the Orthodox Study Bible) and his book I am referring to: Eugen Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition, pages 129-130 : "If one takes into account the clear-cut definition of biblical canon proposed by Ulrich, that the biblical canon is a “closed list” of books tied to the notion of institutional “authority,” then strictly speaking *only the Roman Catholic Church can claim for herself a biblical canon* : a closed list of forty-six books of the Old Testament, officially endorsed by the Council reception of Trent." Regarding the monophysite churches, the Coptic Church, which is the largest one, has almost identical Bible as the RCC has. They reject both 3 Maccabees and the book of Esdras (Esdras A from the Septuagint): www.coptics.info/Bible_Study/Bible/DEUTEROCANONICAL%20BOOKS%20intro.pdf www.lacopts.org/orthodoxy/our-faith/the-holy-bible/the-deuterocanonical-books/ www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1503&catid=677 www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=2012&catid=677 But again, even the "canon" of the Coptic churches was never officially settled.
I've been wondering for a long time if those extra books that the orthodox church accept/debate can be the source of some doctrinal disagreement between us and them. I've never seen them cite from them to defend a particular belief or practice that they hold...
Interesting stream guys. Thanks for making it. I think Ubi said he is willing to discuss or debate this topic Szaraz (or the others i think). This would be cool i think.
Ubi was invited on William's channel. He had the oportunity. Besides, he can respond to us, if he wants. However he should bring up evidence for his claims, which he didn't. So ultimately there is nothing really to debate on this topic. He got wrecked.
And I also had an exchange with Ubi on his channel in the comment section to one of his community posts. The discussion ended up with him not responsing to me. And by the way he was narcistic and rude.
This was fascinating... how to re-unite with the Russian Orthodox Church? God will find a way. Thank you, gentlemen, for your help in bringing these issues to our prayers!
16:16 & 16:42 For anyone familiar with Eastern Rite liturgies in the Catholic Church. From my understanding, even the saints are allowed to carry over, despite not being canonized and sometimes even condemned in the west. Do they allow thee Eastern Liturgical rites to continue to include the extra books they might have in their Bibles and liturgies as well when they come into communion with the Catholic faith? That is, do any Eastern Rites currently have more than 73 books in their liturgies and bibles and, if so, after their readings do they say anything like, "The Word of The Lord?"
18:59 This may help answer the question. But that doesn't tell us which editions have been approved. In theory that could be interpreted to mean that it needs to be a version approved by a council, but experience tells me otherwise as someone who belongs to a rite that uses a non-standard translation with ecclesiastical approval (still only 73 books, though). For the ordinariate, the CDF has to approve whatever bible we use. I imagine there is a similar oversight body for the various Eastern Churches and whatever bible they are approving would need to be looked at with each one to see if allowances are beimg made or not for canons greater than 73 books.
20:28 There we go. That sounds more definitive an answer to this point. If I wanted to press the point, I might ask still if they have additional books in their bible or readings that are not canon. That is a follow-up I would have loved to have seen his answer to, but I'm guessing, based on that response, his answer would be no.
As an aside, Father Hezekias from the Institute of Catholic Culture did say that the Syriac rite you mentioned does include the additional portions of Job at the end. That's not a whole book, not even technically a chapter, but what's added is the longer than many other biblical chapters. Father Hezekias said that addition is considered canon. He's just a priest, so maybe he's wrong, but it's still noteworthy I think.
@@Aethelhart thank you for the comments. There are two Syriac Catholic churches. One is the Syro-Malankara, which I presented in the video. But there is also the Syro-Malabar Catholic church. However they also have the same canon, since the Catholic church has one canon: www.syromalabarcatechesis.com/faq I don't know about the longer ending of Job in their Bible. But even if that is true, that still does not make it canon. They can have an exception for "liturgical or catechetical purposes" as I showed from the Oriental Canon Law, but that would not affect the canon. But again, I would like to see the evidence. Thank you for the input.
The canon from an E.O. point of view is really problematic, some will say it's 66 books (including baruch) and the rest are deuterocanonical but that begs the question what is the rest? Some will say that dont have a set canon and the canon is a small t tradition but then no one can infallibly know what the infallible word of God actually is. Would love to see a debate between Catholics and an E.O. on the canon but I dont think the E.O. will, as it will blow their cover wide upon against protestants when they pretend they also have an infallible canon like Catholics.
@@williamdai8796 The only that comes to mind is fr Patrick Ramsey and William albrecht and even not everyone would share fr Patrick's opinion of what he holds as being canon.
You said the Synod of Jerusalem affirmed the Deuterocanon, but I'm not seeing the full text online. Is it the shorter deuterocanon that we Catholics have or the longer so called deuterocanon that some eastern Orthodox have? Do you have the full text of the relevant portion for reference?
The Synod of Jerusalem was convoked by Dositheus and his confession was proclaimed at the synod. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.vii.html Question 3 What Books do you call Sacred Scripture? Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril [Lucaris] collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding to Scripture those which he foolishly and ignorantly, or rather maliciously, called Apocrypha; specifically, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon” [Bel and the Dragon], “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For *we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture* . For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which has delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, has undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seems that not always have all of these been considered on the same level as the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, both by Synods and by many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church. *All of these we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture* . www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html
i used to think Ubi was a "scary" apologist, but most of his material is pseudo-scholarship, deception, and unchristian rhetoric. He once called Holy Augustine a "lame theologian" who just "talked too much"... disgusting. Great video refuting this pseudo-scholar.
Timestamp 53:40 check out A.E. Breen, A general introduction to the study of Holy Scripture, pages 443-465 To me, Jerome either changed his mind, or simply he never changed his mind, just wanted to discuss the possibility that the Jews are right and not the church. So what we could call Jerome's attitude is simply an academic discourse. However, for him, not his knowledge and his research was the authority, but ultimately the Church's and the pope's faith and tradition, that is why he cites the deuteros as inspired scripture. And lets not forget, Jerome loved to argue. He simply did his research and wanted to defend it. The problem was, nobody took him seriously, since what he "researched" was nothing new. Origen, he spoke Hebrew and included the Hebrew text into his Hexapla, already notes what books the Hebrews accept. So the Church knew this. But I think Jerome still thought he did a better job. Well, he didn't. And to me, it seems that Breen agrees with this: "We have no wish to minimize Jerome's opposition to he deuterocanonical books. At times it was pronounced nd violent. But he could, at most, only be termed a violent doubter. He never was calm and constant in his reaction of those books. The fact that, in such strange opposition, he was at variance with all his contemporaries, made him waver, and we find more quotations from deuterocanonical Scripture in Jerome, than in any other writer yet quoted...In Jerome's mind there was ever a conflict between two principles. By conviction and education he was a Christian, moulded by Christian tradition. His higher studies had made him in a certain sense a Jew." From the multitude of citations let me pick one: Epist. 118, paragraph 1.: *Divina Scriptura* loquitur: 'Musica in luctu, intempestiva narratio.' (Ecclesiasticus 22:6) Breen comments on this: "If words can express thoughts, the man who penned these lines believed that he was quoting the *inspired word of God* ." After Breen gives bunch of quotes from Jerome he concludes: "These are the quotations which a cursory examination of Jerome's works reveals. We see in them that he quoted with great frequency the deuterocanonical books as *divine Scripture* ."
Thank you David and the rest of the 'Triumverate' for another insightful video. From the Anglican side I wish her Articles of Religion VI could be amended even now. 'Hierome' (Jerome) did not have a high opinion of 1-2 Esdras (3-4 Esdras Vg.) and may have never even mentioned the Prayer of Manasses (?). In that way 'our' full 'lectionary' canon would = that of Trent's. I more or less CAN envision most of Anglicanism being absorbed by the RCC as a unique 'rite' with a unique heritage within a century. I am NOT one of those who identify the Pope with 'Antichrist'.
Show one binding statement from the Catholic Church that formally closed the canon. The best you’ll get is a list of books from Trent. That’s it. Dei Verbum is your second best answer but it again doesn’t close the canon, it just says no new public revelations. If a book were to show up in line with the teaching of the church and differ in no way, how then would that be new revelation as opposed to just further explication. You’re overextending your churches position and teaching. I’m sure the Vatican and the pope would be quite unhappy with your video
First, I see you are not able to defend the orthodox position, so all you are left with is attacking our position. This just proves our point. Second, when you read the Acts of Trent, it clearly addresses the other books, like 3 Maccabees, 3-4 Esdras, etc., as "Apocryphal". Since you never read the Acts, you don´t know what you are talking about. Third, canon is a tradition that is "RECEIVED". You cannot add to or subtract from the defined canon, since there is no tradition or pedigree. So when Trent says: these are the books inspired by the Holy Spirit, that is in fact a closed canon by necessity. Your own scholar Eugen Pentiuc confirms that actually its the Roman Catholic canon ONLY that can be considered as closed: Eugen Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition, pages 129-130 : "If one takes into account the clear-cut definition of biblical canon proposed by Ulrich, that the biblical canon is a “closed list” of books tied to the notion of institutional “authority,” then strictly speaking only the Roman Catholic Church can claim for herself a biblical canon : a closed list of forty-six books of the Old Testament, officially endorsed by the Council reception of Trent." I am overextending my churches position and teaching? Vatican would be unhappy with my video?? Quite the contrary, I am in line with the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says: "120. It was by the APOSTOLIC TRADITION that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This COMPLETE list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament." So actually the catechism confirms, my position, and that is, you cannot add anything to Apostolic Tradition, its received as it is, and the canon as pronounced, is complete. Poor you, first learn, and then try to confront.
Great job, as usual, guys! 👍
thank you, we appreciate it
Loving the presentation as always, gentlemen. The Lord bless you richly.
Interesting talk about what is going on, over among Orthodox churches.
I got recommended this channel by a friend, and man, THIS VIDEO WAS GREAT! Big appreciation to not just William but the team. Subbed & dubbed
Thank you for your kind words and for subscribing. We try hard to dig deep. Many more videos and live shows coming.
A year and some “change “ ago someone made a comment against Tobit. Some standard comment about fish guts. A guy (previously unknown to me) named David Szaraz unloaded facts and the conversation was essentially over. David appealed to scholarship, actual scholarship,and not what he “wished” the scholarship stated. This is one of the traits that make Apocrypha Apocalypse great. Good to see he’s a big part of this channel.
He’s part of the team. All three of us make up the Apocrypha apocalypse.
@@ApocryphaApocalypse you men are a blessing William. May the Holy Spirit guide all three of you and your families.
Isn’t it also based on invented hypothetical stories ? The « Melito making a list to evangelize the Sefarad diaspora » and « Cyril making a list of singled out books because they are going to run up against the Jews because they’re in Jerusalem. » And « The Jews were reading Baruch in their synagogue in the fourth century. ». They’re all hypothetical and not based on evidence at all.
@@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν thank you. By the way I always loved your comments this channel and your insights. I appreciate your knowledge as well. God bless you my friend!
Ubi would be toast if he dared face albrecht on this. he will likely try to do a response and take 8 months to produce it and these blokes will tear it to shreds in minutes. cant contend with this scholarship. my hats off to u gentlemen and truly david u are amazing
Great work gentlemen! Thank you
Thanks for watching!
As usual the Apocrypha Apocalypse delivered.
Here in Québec, probably (so far as I can tell) the most widely used edition of the Clementine Latin Vulgate Bible for many years was the edition of Fillion published by Letouzey. That edition has the Vulgate appendix including three non-canonical Vulgate books in Fillion's edition, namely 3 & 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. So, even relatively modern editions of the Vulgate, and of the great Clementine Vulgate, at that, occasionally print these writings in the appendix of the Vulgate.
So basically the Vulgate w/appendix has the same books as the KJV w/Apocrypha, just arranged differently
This good stuff guys!
Timestamp 12:50, this is the scholar (who is also the general editor of the Orthodox Study Bible) and his book I am referring to:
Eugen Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition, pages 129-130 :
"If one takes into account the clear-cut definition of biblical canon proposed by Ulrich, that the biblical canon is a “closed list” of books tied to the notion of institutional “authority,” then strictly speaking *only the Roman Catholic Church can claim for herself a biblical canon* : a closed list of forty-six books of the Old Testament, officially endorsed by the Council reception of Trent."
Regarding the monophysite churches, the Coptic Church, which is the largest one, has almost identical Bible as the RCC has. They reject both 3 Maccabees and the book of Esdras (Esdras A from the Septuagint):
www.coptics.info/Bible_Study/Bible/DEUTEROCANONICAL%20BOOKS%20intro.pdf
www.lacopts.org/orthodoxy/our-faith/the-holy-bible/the-deuterocanonical-books/
www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1503&catid=677
www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=2012&catid=677
But again, even the "canon" of the Coptic churches was never officially settled.
Also:
copticchurch.online/en/bible-books/
www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=999&catid=188
Really appreciate this video.
I've been wondering for a long time if those extra books that the orthodox church accept/debate can be the source of some doctrinal disagreement between us and them. I've never seen them cite from them to defend a particular belief or practice that they hold...
Masterful 🔥🇻🇦🙏
Interesting stream guys. Thanks for making it. I think Ubi said he is willing to discuss or debate this topic Szaraz (or the others i think). This would be cool i think.
Ubi was invited on William's channel. He had the oportunity. Besides, he can respond to us, if he wants. However he should bring up evidence for his claims, which he didn't. So ultimately there is nothing really to debate on this topic. He got wrecked.
And I also had an exchange with Ubi on his channel in the comment section to one of his community posts. The discussion ended up with him not responsing to me. And by the way he was narcistic and rude.
@@davidszaraz4605 wow man… I didn’t mean anything by this. I’m just an outsider not Orthodox or Catholic. No need to be so hostile.
@@BCH_Au I am sorry if it came out as hostile to you. I did not say anything about you. I was only refering to Ubi and his behaviour.
Outstanding!
Thank you! Cheers!
This was fascinating... how to re-unite with the Russian Orthodox Church? God will find a way. Thank you, gentlemen, for your help in bringing these issues to our prayers!
Amen!
Al Gore rhythm boosting comment.
For some reason that I can't explain, William looks like a lion. Did someone else notice that?
27:05 That’s what I said. And some western Catholics told me it was wrong. So it’s good William Albrecht said that.
16:16 & 16:42
For anyone familiar with Eastern Rite liturgies in the Catholic Church. From my understanding, even the saints are allowed to carry over, despite not being canonized and sometimes even condemned in the west. Do they allow thee Eastern Liturgical rites to continue to include the extra books they might have in their Bibles and liturgies as well when they come into communion with the Catholic faith? That is, do any Eastern Rites currently have more than 73 books in their liturgies and bibles and, if so, after their readings do they say anything like, "The Word of The Lord?"
18:59
This may help answer the question. But that doesn't tell us which editions have been approved. In theory that could be interpreted to mean that it needs to be a version approved by a council, but experience tells me otherwise as someone who belongs to a rite that uses a non-standard translation with ecclesiastical approval (still only 73 books, though). For the ordinariate, the CDF has to approve whatever bible we use. I imagine there is a similar oversight body for the various Eastern Churches and whatever bible they are approving would need to be looked at with each one to see if allowances are beimg made or not for canons greater than 73 books.
20:28
There we go. That sounds more definitive an answer to this point. If I wanted to press the point, I might ask still if they have additional books in their bible or readings that are not canon. That is a follow-up I would have loved to have seen his answer to, but I'm guessing, based on that response, his answer would be no.
23:55
That was all very helpful research and adds a lot of weight to your side.
As an aside, Father Hezekias from the Institute of Catholic Culture did say that the Syriac rite you mentioned does include the additional portions of Job at the end. That's not a whole book, not even technically a chapter, but what's added is the longer than many other biblical chapters. Father Hezekias said that addition is considered canon. He's just a priest, so maybe he's wrong, but it's still noteworthy I think.
@@Aethelhart thank you for the comments. There are two Syriac Catholic churches. One is the Syro-Malankara, which I presented in the video. But there is also the Syro-Malabar Catholic church. However they also have the same canon, since the Catholic church has one canon:
www.syromalabarcatechesis.com/faq
I don't know about the longer ending of Job in their Bible. But even if that is true, that still does not make it canon. They can have an exception for "liturgical or catechetical purposes" as I showed from the Oriental Canon Law, but that would not affect the canon. But again, I would like to see the evidence.
Thank you for the input.
The canon from an E.O. point of view is really problematic, some will say it's 66 books (including baruch) and the rest are deuterocanonical but that begs the question what is the rest? Some will say that dont have a set canon and the canon is a small t tradition but then no one can infallibly know what the infallible word of God actually is.
Would love to see a debate between Catholics and an E.O. on the canon but I dont think the E.O. will, as it will blow their cover wide upon against protestants when they pretend they also have an infallible canon like Catholics.
not true many debates been held no clue where you been lol.
@@williamdai8796
The only that comes to mind is fr Patrick Ramsey and William albrecht and even not everyone would share fr Patrick's opinion of what he holds as being canon.
You said the Synod of Jerusalem affirmed the Deuterocanon, but I'm not seeing the full text online. Is it the shorter deuterocanon that we Catholics have or the longer so called deuterocanon that some eastern Orthodox have? Do you have the full text of the relevant portion for reference?
The Synod of Jerusalem was convoked by Dositheus and his confession was proclaimed at the synod.
www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.vii.html
Question 3
What Books do you call Sacred Scripture?
Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril [Lucaris] collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding to Scripture those which he foolishly and ignorantly, or rather maliciously, called Apocrypha; specifically, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon” [Bel and the Dragon], “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For *we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture* . For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which has delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, has undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seems that not always have all of these been considered on the same level as the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, both by Synods and by many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church. *All of these we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture* .
www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html
@@davidszaraz4605 thank you, David. That's very helpful.
@@Aethelhart You are welcome!
St Philaret of Moscow isn't universally binding.
i used to think Ubi was a "scary" apologist, but most of his material is pseudo-scholarship, deception, and unchristian rhetoric. He once called Holy Augustine a "lame theologian" who just "talked too much"... disgusting. Great video refuting this pseudo-scholar.
Well put. And thank you.
Timestamp 53:40 check out A.E. Breen, A general introduction to the study of Holy Scripture, pages 443-465
To me, Jerome either changed his mind, or simply he never changed his mind, just wanted to discuss the possibility that the Jews are right and not the church. So what we could call Jerome's attitude is simply an academic discourse. However, for him, not his knowledge and his research was the authority, but ultimately the Church's and the pope's faith and tradition, that is why he cites the deuteros as inspired scripture. And lets not forget, Jerome loved to argue. He simply did his research and wanted to defend it. The problem was, nobody took him seriously, since what he "researched" was nothing new. Origen, he spoke Hebrew and included the Hebrew text into his Hexapla, already notes what books the Hebrews accept. So the Church knew this. But I think Jerome still thought he did a better job. Well, he didn't.
And to me, it seems that Breen agrees with this:
"We have no wish to minimize Jerome's opposition to he deuterocanonical books. At times it was pronounced nd violent. But he could, at most, only be termed a violent doubter. He never was calm and constant in his reaction of those books. The fact that, in such strange opposition, he was at variance with all his contemporaries, made him waver, and we find more quotations from deuterocanonical
Scripture in Jerome, than in any other writer yet quoted...In Jerome's mind there was ever a conflict between two principles. By conviction and education he was a Christian, moulded by Christian tradition. His higher studies had made him in a certain sense a Jew."
From the multitude of citations let me pick one:
Epist. 118, paragraph 1.: *Divina Scriptura* loquitur: 'Musica in luctu, intempestiva narratio.' (Ecclesiasticus 22:6)
Breen comments on this:
"If words can express thoughts, the man who penned these lines believed that he was quoting the *inspired word of God* ."
After Breen gives bunch of quotes from Jerome he concludes:
"These are the quotations which a cursory examination of Jerome's works reveals. We see in them that he quoted with great frequency the deuterocanonical books as *divine Scripture* ."
Thank you David and the rest of the 'Triumverate' for another insightful video. From the Anglican side I wish her Articles of Religion VI could be amended even now. 'Hierome' (Jerome) did not have a high opinion of 1-2 Esdras (3-4 Esdras Vg.) and may have never even mentioned the Prayer of Manasses (?). In that way 'our' full 'lectionary' canon would = that of Trent's. I more or less CAN envision most of Anglicanism being absorbed by the RCC as a unique 'rite' with a unique heritage within a century. I am NOT one of those who identify the Pope with 'Antichrist'.
@@hunterjones8962 thank you for your input. I always appreciate your comments. God bless
Show one binding statement from the Catholic Church that formally closed the canon. The best you’ll get is a list of books from Trent. That’s it. Dei Verbum is your second best answer but it again doesn’t close the canon, it just says no new public revelations. If a book were to show up in line with the teaching of the church and differ in no way, how then would that be new revelation as opposed to just further explication.
You’re overextending your churches position and teaching. I’m sure the Vatican and the pope would be quite unhappy with your video
First, I see you are not able to defend the orthodox position, so all you are left with is attacking our position. This just proves our point.
Second, when you read the Acts of Trent, it clearly addresses the other books, like 3 Maccabees, 3-4 Esdras, etc., as "Apocryphal". Since you never read the Acts, you don´t know what you are talking about.
Third, canon is a tradition that is "RECEIVED". You cannot add to or subtract from the defined canon, since there is no tradition or pedigree. So when Trent says: these are the books inspired by the Holy Spirit, that is in fact a closed canon by necessity.
Your own scholar Eugen Pentiuc confirms that actually its the Roman Catholic canon ONLY that can be considered as closed:
Eugen Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition, pages 129-130 :
"If one takes into account the clear-cut definition of biblical canon proposed by Ulrich, that the biblical canon is a “closed list” of books tied to the notion of institutional “authority,” then strictly speaking only the Roman Catholic Church can claim for herself a biblical canon : a closed list of forty-six books of the Old Testament, officially endorsed by the Council reception of Trent."
I am overextending my churches position and teaching? Vatican would be unhappy with my video?? Quite the contrary, I am in line with the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says:
"120. It was by the APOSTOLIC TRADITION that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This COMPLETE list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament."
So actually the catechism confirms, my position, and that is, you cannot add anything to Apostolic Tradition, its received as it is, and the canon as pronounced, is complete. Poor you, first learn, and then try to confront.